Mexico weekly ledger., 1887-02-17
THE LAW WHICH PREGLUDED GEO.
ROBERTSON FROM ACTING
FOR THE STATE.
Prosecuting Attorney Robertson Gould
Have Acted in No Other Way
Than He Did.
Absolutely Nothing at all in the Matter
All Mere Newspaper Talk.


In last Wednesdays issue of the In
t~eHigencer, the editor says that dur
ing the time Mr.. Robertson was
Prosecuting Attorney the case of the
State VS.. VIM. Bedell was pending in
the Circuit Court, and Mr.. Robertson
represented both the state and the
defendant" In answe to this Mr..
Robertson published a card of no IN
certain sound in the LEDGER of Fri
day. In defence of the position pre-
viously taken by him the editor Of In
le~lligeneer publishes in Saturdays
paper, copies of the Circuit Court re-
cords in the Bedell case. He first
copies the Indictment, next the re-
cord of the trial and conviction, and
lastly, the motion for new trial filed
by Mr.. Robertson on the 18th day of
Feb, 1886, four days before he was
appointed Prosecuting Attorney. The
records, copies of which are inserted
in the editorial of Saturday, were all
made prior to Mr.. Robertson becom-
ing attorney for the state, and there
appears not a single line to show that
after that date he represented either
side of the case. These same records,
IN connection with the provisions Of
the statute enacted to reach just
such cases, aud in view of the we'll
recognized principles of right, are a
complete refutatlon Of Mr.. Cooks
editorial of Wednesday.
Section SIS, of the Revised Stat
utes of 1879, of the State of Mis-
souri,, is as follows: eff the Prose
cutting Attorney, or assistant Prose
cutting Attorney, be interested, or
shall have been employed as counsel
in any case in which it shall be his
duty to prosecute or defend, the
court having criminal jurisdiction,
may appoint some other person to
prosecute or defend the CASE
Under this statute Mr.. Robertson
was barred from taking any part
whatever in the prosecution OF Be-
dell's case. He could not assume
any relation to that case other than
| that he would have been in if he had
never become Prosecuting Attorney.
1t was his duty as we'll as his privilege
to continue to act as attorney for Be-
| dell. and he was under no obligation
to assist the state in securing the
conviction of the defendant-in fact,
he was prccluded from having any
part whatever in the prosecution.
This statute is merely the voicing of
he well established principle that no
one, after having occupied the conf
dental relation of attorney and conn-
selor to one party, should assume that
same relation to the other party to
the controversy.
The records show that motion for
new trial was FLED before Mr. Robert
son became Prosecuting Attorney,
and the fact, not shown by the re-
cord, is that motion a argued be-
fore the court by Mr.. Buckner, Mr..
Robertson's predecessor in office.
The main point insisted upon in that
motion was whether the prosecution
by the state was not barred by reason
Of a former conviction for the same
offense. Previously to The finding
of the fundamentally the Grand Jury.
Bedell had been arrested, tried and
convicted IN the city court and pun
ished for the identical offense charg-
ed IN the indictment. This former
conviction was urged as Il bar 20 the
prosecution by the state, under the
we'll established doctrine that ro man
shall be punished more than once for
the same offense. The question
whether q prosecution in 8 city court
is a criminal action of such a nature
as to bar a subsequent prosecution in
a court of criminal jurisdiction, or is a
civil action and hence no bar, has
been, and is. one of great uncertain
ty. The decisions of the courts of
last resort of some states hold it is a
bar, and others that it is net. The
decisions are very conflicting, and it
is with difficulty that any court has
arrived at q decision. After having
heard the argument Of the attorneys,